1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Basic Facts

On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the goods stated in the purport of the claim. The court of first instance served the Defendant with a copy of the complaint, notification of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and proceeded with the pleadings, and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on August 25, 2015, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice.

On the other hand, on July 3, 2017, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order against the Defendant’s obligor, corporation D, etc. pursuant to the above judgment of the first instance court on the grounds that the Defendant’s spouse was served on August 1, 2017 at the Defendant’s domicile as indicated in the written complaint of the instant written complaint.

On September 12, 2018, the Plaintiff was issued a new order of seizure and collection against the Defendant, and the third obligor E, based on the above judgment of the first instance court. However, the above order was served to the Defendant by service by public notice.

On November 30, 2018, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for the subsequent completion to this court.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings of this case are legitimate, Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to them, the litigation may be supplemented within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist," and "where the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service by public notice, the time when the cause ceases to exist" under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act means the time when the defendant was not simply known of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice was received by public notice. In ordinary cases, the defendant perused the records of this case or received the original copy of the judgment.